mspart

He called it the winning move. mspart

Just look at Sherman, he could take down a tank!! mspart

I disagree. Lee was dominant as has been stated. Joe Williams won but not in dominant fashion, his matches were always close. He could have been dominant but that didn't seem to be his thing. I would put him behind Snyder, Retherford and Nickal. I don't think he is behind any of the others. Perhaps we split the difference and say he is one of the greatest NCAA wrestlers of all time. mspart

WTTs will be a skeleton of what they were. I hope this is not a patter for OTTs. That is a fun event to attend. mspart

Yeah right. She broke the law. Comey decided it didn't meet the threshold to take action on a presidential candidate. It is now clear Comey was siding with Hillary and not siding with Trump. So there was a case, it was not moved on. Do you honestly think is Joe Schmoe or Mike Parrish kept his emails on a remote server with classified and non classified communications on it that he would likewise be exonerated? Of course not. He'd be in prison currently and rightfully so. Hillary got special treatment, simple as that. mspart

Hey Vak, 1. If this is correct, why didn't the Dems do it when they had the opportunity in 2021-2022? 2. We must agree to disagree here. 3. No I'm saying no one could blame the Dems if they McConnell'd an R SCOTUS justice nomination. There would be plenty who would try, but it has been done once, it will happen again for either side given the opportunity. What you are failing to understand is that you would have been ecstatic if the shoe was on the other foot and Schumer did this same thing with the same opportunities. That is wanting it both ways - For McConnell not to do it but for Schumer to do it. That is in essence what you are saying. And you want to rush and take it by force by increasing the number of justices. Again, wanting it both ways. You want a liberal court. You had a liberal court for decades and it made you happy. Now there is a more conservative court and it wouldn't matter if it was 5-4, 6-3, 7-2 or 8-1, you would not be happy with that and propose various ways to circumvent it. You want a liberal court by any means necessary. You feel it was stolen from you and you want it back. It was an extraordinary set of circumstances that fell McConnell's way (he did nothing illegal which is your measure here). I don't know of any other time when so many justices were changed out in such a short period of time. 4. I have no idea how it has anything to do with the price of tea in China. Honestly I don't. I was presenting you an example of tit for tat. I assume you were happy with the makeup of the Jan 6 committee. If not, I am wrong on that, and withdraw that insinuation. But I also assume you are happy with the direction the Jan 6 committee was going and hoped that the House would maintain a D majority so it could continue. Again, if that is not the case, I withdraw the insinuation. In other words, I believe you were happy for Pelosi to deny years of decorum and go against the standard policy that had been followed for almost forever. But you are angry at McConnell for doing what he did. They essentially did the same thing. One makes you happy and content, the other makes you angry. mspart

nhs, based on your post, there will be no WTT for 57kg weight class (for an example). From the past, I understood that a previous year medalist get auto berth to Final X. From the past, I understood there was a WTT for every weight class to either choose 2 for final x in the even there is no previous medalist or 1 to face the medalist at Final X. From the past I understood that WTT was filled with US open placers and then some others. But now It appears now that medalists still get auto berth to Final X It appears now that in the case of a medalist already in Final X, US open winner will be the opponent in Final X. No WTT will be held. It appears now that in the case of no medallist, US open winner and WTT winner will be in Final X. Do I have that all correct? This seems needlessly confusing. Why not have winner and #2 from US open fight it out in final X? Cut out the WTTs altogether which they almost have anyway. WTT will be a shell of what it was. I don't mind the medalist getting a break, but US open sets up seeds for WTTs when determines the final participants in Final X. That is pretty straightforward. Anyway, if you could confirm or clarify my understanding above, that would be great. mspart

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with HIllary? mspart

I'll take these as I see them. 1 and 2: You are just thinking Ds vote in this country? Well it is roughly 33% D, 33% R, and 33% I. It is those darn pesky Independents that you need to keep good optics for. 3. Doing nothing is advise and consent. Advise and consent does not mean a vote has to be taken. If they had had a vote and Garland got shot down, you'd be upset that it was hyper partisan. 4. Not projecting on "you want it both ways". I am looking and reading what you have written and made an informed observation. Sorry you don't like it. 5. Bork was Borked by the Ds. They made a verb out of his last name, but I suppose you knew that. In a similar way, the Rs supported certain of their caucus for the Jan 6 committee. Pelosi said no. She didn't even hear them. She completely ignored them. She assembled the most partisan committee the House has ever seen. According to the rules, both parties provide their nominations to the committee. Never has the Speaker completely ignored that. Now this does not rise to the same level perhaps you say, but it is the same playbook. Again, you want it both ways. mspart

I guess we'll see when we see. How does he make it to Final X at this point? Auto invite or does he need to qualify at some other tourney? mspart

Joe Biden did everything he could to get Thomas's nomination railroaded. But at that time, there was more collegiality among the Senators and often members of the opposite party would vote based on objective criteria rather than emotion and ideology. We have gotten away from that and that is too bad. Makes for bad spectacle. The Rs have never gone after any D nominee with the unfettered vengeance that the Ds have to R nominees. mspart

Correct! mspart

Fake news https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/politics/legal-drama-surrounding-trump-reaches-a-fever-pitch/index.html The Manhattan grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the case pertaining to Trump’s alleged role in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star will sit on Thursday, a source familiar with the investigation told CNN. As always, they need better sources. mspart

OK, thank you for the explanation. 1. It is perfectly allowable for Ds to expand the court if they can get that done. But it is not good optics. It is necessarily an admission that your point of view is not as mainstream as you thought so you will rig the game to get your way. That's how I see it. Like the kid that doesn't get his way and takes his ball home. Same juvenile reasoning. 2. The Constitution says the President has the power to nominate justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. That does not mean that the Senate is bound to consent to the choice. Ds made that quite clear with Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. Successful and declining the first, not on the other two though they tried mightily. The majority Senate, by remaining silent, did their Constitutional duty of providing advise and consent. In the latter case, the hearings were rapid I agree, but were just. Again, you want it both ways. You don't get that in life or in politics. But people still expect it. Regardless, McConnell played the hand dealt to him. It doesn't matter if you like or don't like Schumer, he would have done the same thing. AND, you would not complain about it, far from it. You would applaud. Thus showing that you are not idealistic in this matter, but boldly and partisanly political. To put it plainly, McConnell's move was wrong. Schumer, if he did the same, would be valiantly and vociferously validated. For you, it is not that it was done that is the problem, but who did it. That is not a very objective way to look at this. mspart

Lee got caught on a crazy move. When was the last time you saw anyone do anything like that? Maybe Sadulaev vs Snyder in the World Finals. When Lee got turned around, he looked shocked, at least how I remember it. He had the presence of mind to get his arms free but it was too late at that point. Regarding forfeiting the rest of his matches, not unheard of. It happens from time to time. My guess is, without a National Championship possible, why put the knees in further harm. Not worth the risk for 3rd place. Especially if he has Olympic aspirations. mspart

Yoel Romero defected I think. Not during wrestling but when he went MMA. mspart

I'm not following your argument here. Your last statement states "exploit this rule". What do you mean by "this rule"? Also, your last statement says, "McConnell's exploiting of another rule?" What do you mean by "another rule"? If you could respond to these questions, that would be great. In addition, you are saying the court has been has high as 10 justices. So that is precedent to go to 13 justices per the Senate Ds stated goal as noted earlier? You know, they should not pussy foot around and just go straight for 21 - Get 'er done!! mspart

You have tried to say that packing the court does not mean increasing the number. But now you admit that is exactly what you want to do. Dishonesty in argument is not a good look. mspart

I think you know the difference Plasi. Who here anywhere said that packing was illegal? No one that I know of. That is a spin argument you guys are putting out there to get away from the actual topic. As to your last statement, I wish both sides would play by the same rules. But it is apparent that this is not the case for a majority of Ds. D's want all the advantages of power even when they are not in power. mspart

So you are not arguing to increase the number of justices like the Senate has been doing? https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/the-democrats-plan-to-pack-the-supreme-court Last week, Democrats in the Senate and House introduced legislation to pack the Supreme Court by adding four new justices. This marks a dramatic change. I find this very difficult to believe your first statement quoted above. Your post on 3/21 does not indicate a willingness to wait. Unfortunately, Congress per the Constitution would have to make this happen. House is in R territory. Not happening for another 2 years at least. You are backtracking now. Perhaps not, but it is very hard to reconcile the above two statements of yours. mspart

Yes true. But you do not say anything here about how bad she handled the emails. You only say she was not indicted. Again, can't you see you are doing the same thing you are complaining about? Your basic argument for Hillary is that she was running for president and shouldn't be indicted because that would disenfranchise millions of Americans who wanted to vote for her. That was the overriding argument, not that she broke the law. Now we have another declared candidate, and you want him in jail as fast as possible. Again, can't you see you are doing the same thing you are complaining about? Trump’s legal team had appealed that ruling, which said the lawyer, Evan Corcoran, must provide evidence to prosecutors because his legal services may have been used to facilitate a possible crime — obstruction of government attempts to recover highly sensitive documents — according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sealed court proceedings. As part of Howell’s ruling, Corcoran was ordered to give the Justice Department notes, transcripts of recordings, and invoices in his possession, according to a person familiar with the matter, who said the judge has reviewed that material and concluded there was evidence suggesting Trump may have misled his own attorneys in the classified-documents matter. On the panel were Florence Pan, a former D.C. Superior Court judge, and J. Michelle Childs, a former South Carolina judge. Both were nominated by President Biden to the federal bench, and Childs was on the president’s shortlist of potential nominees to fill the Supreme Court opening created by the retirement of Justice Stephen G. Breyer. The third judge on the panel, Cornelia T.L. Pillard, was nominated by President Barack Obama. Interesting makeup of the 3 judge panel. And how long do you think it will take to get this before another judge and have this reversed? You must know by now this will go on forever. The language in the article says that Trump may have, that there is evidence Trump may have, but there is no concrete statement reported from the court that I would think should be necessary to drive the elimination of attorney client privilege. If there was a definitive statement from the court that Trump did, then attorney client privilege could be suspended. I guess we'll see how this parses out. mspart

How will you pack the court without adding justices? I don't believe your argument because that argument is not your position on the matter. mspart

Hillary was caught red handed grossly and knowingly mishandling State Dept emails both classified and not. She tried to get rid of the evidence using bleachbit. She had the email server in an unsecure location. If Trump had done this you guys would want to throw the book at him. But Hillary? No problem. She's old and doesn't understand this stuff. And she wants to be President? She knew enough to have a server set up to house this information so it could not easily be traced. She knew enough to get bleachbit and try to wipe the hard drive. That is obstruction of justice but you don't care obviously as noted in your post above. You will whitewash these pecadillos away while piling on Trump. Do you not see the inconsistency of your position? mspart

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-says-special-prosecutor-has-evidence-trump-may-have-broken-law-sources/ar-AA18UOht Judge says special prosecutor has evidence Trump may have broken law: Sources Quite the definitive statement. mspart

No, I don't think that is illegal. According to the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. I think it is unnecessary and not fruitful to increase the number. What's to stop it from becoming a 50 justice panel, or 1000 justice panel when certain political parties feel put upon? It loses credibility as an institution at that point. I'm sure you think it already has but adding justices is not the answer to that issue. Somehow you guys think that a liberal court is just great. You've always had one so you don't know any different. But you think a conservative court is and should be illegal. You are the guys that are unreasonable here. Conservatives have been waiting for decades for the opportunity now present and you guys figured it would never happen. Now you are panicking. Classic case of giving crap and telling the recipient to be grateful, but not taking it. mspart